Mrinal Kanti Sarkar @ Mrinal Kanta Sarkar v. the State of Assam
Gauhati HCAB/1013/2023
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
GAHC010060962023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT…
What the court decided
AI extract
GAHC010060962023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010060962023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1013/2023
MRINAL KANTI SARKAR @ MRINAL KANTA SARKAR S/O- LATE BIMAL CH. SARKAR, R/O- VILL.- GAURIPUR TOWN WARD NO. 3, P.S. GAURIPUR, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783371.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L R MAZUMDER
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
ORDER
Date : 21-06-2023
1. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury for the petitioner assisted by Mr. A.Z. Ahmed and Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P., Assam.
2. The petitioner, namely, Mrinal Kanti Sarkar @ Mrinal Kanta Sarkar has filed an application u/s 438 Cr.PC with prayer of pre-arrest bail as he is apprehending arrest in connection with Dhubri Police Station Case No. 147/2023 under Sections
Page No.# 2/2
120(B)/420/406/409/468/471/506 IPC.
3. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. I have also perused the Case Diary.
4. The FIR is lodged by Sri Nipan Roy, A Junior Assistant against the petitioner. The petitioner is the Additional District Programme Manager (ADPM) of Dhubri Zila Parishad. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the allegations have been made by Junior Assistant pertaining two years of misappropriation of funds for personal gain without information of the informant, who is the Junior Assistant. The office furnitures have been taken away allegedly by the petitioner for his personal use. There is an allegation of the using petrol for the official vehicle despite objections by the informant. On the contrary, it is submitted that the CEO has lodged a complaint against Nipan Roy, who has suggested for his suspension due to the anomalies committed by him. An FIR was also lodged against the informant. The copies of the letter of the CEO as well as the FIR lodged by the CEO against the informant, will form a part of the record. It is submitted that no case under Sections 420/406/409/468/471 IPC can be made out from the contents of the FIR.
5. The petitioner has appeared before the IO and his statement has been recorded.
6. In view of my foregoing discussions and considering all aspects, the order dated 21.03.2023 is hereby made absolute.
Send back the Case Diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner deserves interim relief in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances.
Whether the petitioner has been guilty of any misfeasance or gross neglect of duty.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
MRINAL KANTI SARKAR @ MRINAL KANTA SARKAR
THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND